​Over the years, I have been critical of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) and its parent organization, the Center for Free Inquiry. As a result of the particular interests of its founding generation, notably philosopher Paul Kurtz, CSI has routinely conflated scientific skepticism with secular humanism, going so far as to ostracize those who aren’t atheists from the skeptical movement. This tendency will only grow worse now that CFI has officially merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, another group that is officially dedicated to science and reason but is informally an atheist advocacy group. I think that it is a mistake to claim skepticism as a cadet branch of atheism.

​I don’t need to rehash all of the reasons that I believe this, among them the fact that (a) skepticism is an activity, not a belief and (b) critical thinking can govern how to think about issues and evaluate alternatives, but it cannot make value judgments for us. It is not for me to tell people what conclusions to draw from evidence, or how to feel about it, but rather our goal should be to ensure that we agree on what constitutes evidence and the rules of logic that allow us to draw conclusions from it. To put it in plainer terms, we might consider the famous “trolley problem” in philosophy: A trolley moves down the track, about to strike three people. Flipping a switch would send it down another track, killing just one person. Do you actively intervene to kill one and save three? Does it matter if the one person is a famous scientist and the three are criminals? Science and reason can help us evaluate the facts and the consequences, but they cannot tell us how to feel about the intangible value of human life, of personal responsibility, etc. Those aren’t questions for science.

However, skeptics want to make them so. In the new edition of Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2017), there are a number of somewhat disturbing articles that emphasize the “mission creep” that weakens the concept of critical thinking by marrying it too closely to the philosophy of secular humanism, to atheist advocacy, and to a generally misanthropic worldview that is deeply off-putting. It is a philosophy for an angry minority, primarily of bitter old men, but it is not a positive vision of anything, and not one that will reach the large mass of people skeptics claim to want to influence.

Consider Confidence Game author Maria Konnikova’s speech at CSICon Las Vegas reported in the Skeptical Inquirer. She told the audience that stories are bad. “In the wrong hands, stories can be a force for evil,” she said, as though this were any different than any other human endeavor. Hammers are a force for evil sometimes, too, as is even logic itself, when the deadly efficiency of syllogisms lead nations to terrible atrocities in the name of reason. Konnikova complained that storytelling leads to emotions, and emotions lead to terrible consequences, including injustice and fraud. “Humanity sucks; trust no one!” she said, though she was in context a tad more hopeful than this makes her sound. That might sound like a rallying cry for disaffected outcasts, but it reinforces the idea that skeptics cast themselves as outsiders casting angry judgment on the follies of the wicked. In this, they are mirror images of the fundamentalist Christians who issue moral fatwas while pretending to be in the world, but not of the world. I would prefer to call out fraudsters for their frauds without assuming that everyone is inherently evil and corrupt.

But more directly of concern was the interview that Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick Frazier had with James “the Amazing” Randi. Both men were present at the beginning of CSI. Randi was a founder of the organization in 1976, and Frazier has edited Skeptical Inquirer since 1977. But as much good work as both have done, their time has passed. They have hardened in their views to the point that they have become limiting. Frazier’s magazine has barely changed, in format or content, in decades. He likes to publish anniversary updates of material written before I was born. The current issue features an update of the book The Selfish Gene, which Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976! Frazier only introduced color a few years ago for crying out loud! He continues to view the magazine as an academic journal for the smart set, and that means that it has virtually no appeal to people who would like a Consumer Reports-style evaluation of what is true but who have no intention of wading through verbiage that is always stodgy and often purposefully complex. Randi has always been more of a populist, but as he has grown older he has become more militant in seeing skepticism as a wedge for atheism, somewhat like the inverse of evangelicals who hope to use intelligent design to advocate for their God. Randi is officially agnostic because he cannot prove there is no God, but his agnosticism is the kind of technical agnosticism born of logic, the way I am technically agnostic on the existence of unicorns.

In their interview, Randi brought up the issue of Martin Gardner’s deism, and Frazier suggested that skeptics “can certainly deal with a deist in the house,” a phrasing that suggests an assumption that skeptics will be atheists until proved otherwise. Randi, however, despite supporting Gardner’s deism because Gardner conceded it was illogical, wasted no words in condemning God: “I just think that a belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. It may improve. I see signs that it may be improving. I’ll leave it at that.” He later added that he had been skeptical of religion since childhood. Both men seemed to feel that skepticism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, but this repeats the error of political parties that impose ideological purity tests on their members. It promotes extremism and limits the good that can be done among a larger population.

What’s interesting, though, is the contrast that Randi drew between the early years of CSI(COP) and what it is today. Randi spoke of how he used to develop deep personal relationships with newspaper columnists, journalists, and broadcasters in order to make himself the go-to person for a skeptical viewpoint on unusual claims. By contrast, over the years CSI has moved farther and farther from deep engagement with the mainstream media and instead retreated into an insulated world of Skeptical Inquirer, the James Randi Educational Foundation message boards, and the skeptical conference circuit. As a result, the organization now talks mostly to itself and its membership, and despite its claims to do outreach, a Google News search finds that the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has almost no presence in the mainstream media in the past few years. (The exception is Joe Nickell, who is usually promoting his own books and his investigations rather than CSI as an institution.)

In the same issue, Ronald A. Lindsay, the former CEO of CFI, says that I am wrong about the insularity of skepticism. He says that this is “the cynic’s view.” Lindsay touted CFI’s public policy arm, which hasn’t really had much impact, to be honest (they pushed for regulations on homeopathy, yielding an FDA label on products that no one will read), and is more aligned with secular humanism than skepticism anyway. To return to my point from earlier, I have a problem with this kind of advocacy because skepticism can’t tell us what values to promote. For example, a few weeks ago, a New Mexico legislator moved to codify into law that no government money should be used to hunt for Bigfoot or other “fictional” creatures after Christopher Dyer of the University of New Mexico took his students on a daylong Bigfoot hunt. The legislator, George Munoz, claimed that it was not “morally right” to spend taxpayer dollars on fruitless research. Skepticism cannot tell us whether to support efforts to rid the academy of pseudoscience or whether to oppose government restrictions on academic freedom. This is a value judgment, and a political one.

But in explaining CFI’s role in political controversies, Lindsay also inadvertently confirmed what I had long suspected: Big-league skeptics want to be seen as “serious” players in public policy at the highest levels, not merely people who work in the trenches with the vulgar masses. He defended skepticism against John Horgan’s charges that it devotes too much time to the supernatural by explaining that CSI is now primarily about health and medicine based advocacy and science education advocacy. But in making his case, he also all but admitted that skepticism is now an abstract concept, talking about vague principles rather than real concerns, and largely divorced from the workaday issues that real people face when confronted with bizarre and unusual claims. Just as Washington seems removed from the American people, so too is a politically oriented skepticism focused on public policy issues removed from the kinds of practical “is this true?” issues that are about the only thing skepticism does differently and better than any other special interest group.

Lindsay concluded with a call for support (read: money) for “appropriate science-based public policies,” happily conflating skepticism and secular humanism, and assuming that science can dictate public policies rather than merely inform a selection of policy options.

I am not sure what you are saying I am wrong about. I am not advocating for religion, but merely saying that purity tests for who is allowed to think critically risk driving away the people skeptics most want to reach. Skepticism shouldn't be an identity movement.

Reply

Joseph Wilson

2/19/2017 10:42:38 pm

Hear, hear! You have hit the nail on the head here.

Time Machine

2/21/2017 08:58:14 am

Oh come on, Jesus Christ can be debunked as easily as Erich Von Daniken, Scottt Wolter and the rest.

Reply

Time Machine

2/21/2017 09:02:04 am

And how can Biblical Apologetic scepticism be defended.

The Bible is as daft as Chariots of the Gods.

Time Machine

2/21/2017 09:16:31 am

The Bible is there to be debunked
The product of primitive man who believed in superstitious nonsense in the absence of scientific knowledge

Reply

A Buddhist

2/19/2017 10:38:11 am

Jason,

I deny that any being claiming to be a Supreme God speaks truly. On that we disagree.

But must we also disagree about the definition of skepticism? skepticism is an outlook on the world that can manifest in various ways. You favour limiting skepticism to merely debunking claims, but other skeptics favour a broader application of skeptical principles so that a nation-state may be guided in sound policies. Both your attitude and their attitude are based upon an unwillingness to take claims at face value without investigating them through the lens of credible scholarship, including science.

If one were to apply your attitude about the limitations of science in defining government policy consistently, the conclusion seems to arise that there are multiple values of truth which support each other. One could from this premise argue, as Plato and Eusebius argued, that claims such as and similar to those that you debunk should not be debunked if they promote virtue and defeat vice. Yet I doubt that you would support such a casual attitude towards the truth.

I am not suggesting that science is the beginning and end of inquiry (I am not a Cārvāka thinker), but one must be careful in discussing its limitations, especially when one is urging a severe restriction upon skepticism.

Reply

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 11:21:23 am

"other skeptics favour a broader application of skeptical principles so that a nation-state may be guided in sound policies"
That seems to be straying close to confusion of skepticism with wider categories of rational thinking.

Reply

A Buddhist

2/19/2017 12:21:49 pm

Some would say that this is the beauty of the skeptics' world-view - it encourages and supports the development of rationalism.

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 04:03:40 pm

I'm sure it does- but I'm not at all sure that a fundamentally negatory approach is the best way into rational thinking.

Only Me

2/19/2017 10:41:07 am

Many times I've read online "discussions" where someone claiming to be an atheist was utterly confused that there are scientists who have faith. Apparently, you can't be a scientist or skeptic or, whatever, if you follow a religion.

Why? I guess it's because there are atheists/skeptics who actually believe everyone should think exactly as they do. Which is hypocritical, since that's their number one complaint against religion.

Reply

A Buddhist

2/19/2017 11:01:57 am

If there were no religious scientists, there would be no Newtonian physics or Faraday cages!

Reply

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 11:17:28 am

There might, however, be Faraday cages and expositions of Newtonian physics under the names of different people; a condition of our existence is that oxygen existed before science identified it.

Uncle Ron

2/19/2017 11:37:49 am

If Newton had been completely religious he would have observed the falling apple and said to himself, "God made that happen," and that would have been the end of it.

Kathleen

2/19/2017 01:22:39 pm

I know I've said it before, but check out CCC 159.

Fawkes

2/19/2017 03:26:28 pm

"If there were no religious scientists, there would be no Newtonian physics or Faraday cages!"

What a ridiculous statement. Of course those things would exist. They are natural consequences of the universe as it's currently, or formerly, understood. They are not divinely mandated.

So a non-religious scientist would have found them, they still would have been found. Big deal.

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 03:41:57 pm

OK, I am quite impressed. Confused, but impressed:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chicagocorvetteclub/5189158948/

Time Machine

2/21/2017 09:00:35 am

CCC 159

Scott Wolter is rubbish

But I can love Jesus Christ

Crap

dubious f

2/19/2017 01:14:02 pm

A fact, a scientific (based on it's method and methodology) proof, always makes more sense and easier to explain that trying to conclude to a meddling hand of a god. A belief is not a proof. Skeptism is that; discern the proof from the belief, the opinion, the possibility, the self-reasoning, the social acceptance, the perception, the mystic involvement, the moral faith.....

I wouldn't argue otherwise. But there is no reason to say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to engage in critical thinking because they aren't 100% doctrinaire atheist. Would you also purge all the people who engage in superstitions, wear a lucky shirt to a job interview, or who have sentimental attachments to childhood mementos? These behaviors are irrational as well. By the time you get down to the handful of Vulcans in the population, you will have eliminated almost everyone. That's why I said that we should view skepticism as an action, not an identity, so that anyone can engage in it and, we would hope, learn something from it. Purging the impure is a recipe of marginalization and isolation.

Reply

Dubious f

2/19/2017 01:51:48 pm

I agree with your point and I have a tendency to orient the fact as real hardcore proof, God fearing or not. I think we usually mix religion and spirituality, spirituality is not a religion but I feel the later one tend to divide the populace. It's not that a zero-God matrix is a prerequisite to skeptism, it's that by extent, a believing member of a religious or sectarian group cannot shove down our throats a fact that comes from a dogma. If it's not in the bible, it's not true!! If so why can't I change my water into wine....

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 07:32:41 pm

"why can't I change my water into wine"
Perhaps because you are just a human creation of the omnipotent deity, not a human avatar of the omnipotent deity.

Dubious f

2/19/2017 08:13:32 pm

if a "deus vult" governs, God is busy. On a philosophical point of view, can a god be so powerful that he can create a universe that he has no control over. So long omnipotence. I like to think my entity is in that one....

A C

2/19/2017 02:16:02 pm

You see lots of atheists proudly claim that they were critical of religion from a young age.

How being proud of the fact that your philosophical outlook hasn't improved since you were ten years old is supposed to be a sign of your amazing intelligence and rationality I do not know.

There's something strangely Calvinist about this obsession with analysing your biography for proof of one's rationality. There's nothing odd about talking about your personal history but when people are rushing to say it like it has some kind of social prestige value outside of it just being anecdotal trivia the synchronicity is notable.

The odd thing is that the fringe folk do it, too. Erich von Daniken makes the same claim in his books, that he doubted Catholic dogma from grade school. Giorgio Tsoukalos speaks of how he believed in ancient aliens since he was a toddler. I think it comes down to trying to establish one's position as a true believer and a lifelong member of the faith. It's a reflection of the desire to be seen as morally pure and virtuous.

Also, it would be very interesting, I think, for a latter-day Plutarch to create a Parallel Lives of Randi and von Daniken. There are weird parallels there.

Reply

Time Machine

2/21/2017 09:13:38 am

And not everyone is a programmed Roman Catholic like Jason Colavito "I was raised a Catholic, I am therefore a Catholic"

Some people make choices in their lives and have more fibre than Jason Colavito

Gary

2/19/2017 03:40:28 pm

Jason, would you also object to skeptics rejecting someone who was an anti-vaxer or a promoter of homeopathy? Religion may be culturally ingrained but should still be subject to the same evaluation as other non-scientific, unsupported claims

Reply

DR HALSEY

2/19/2017 03:48:19 pm

Doesn't that scenario run counter to Jason's call for skepticism to not be an identify in-and-of-itself?

Reply

V

2/19/2017 07:53:54 pm

Personally, I would object to skeptics rejecting "someone who was..." anything at all, and I think this is precisely the point that Jason was making: when you reject the PERSON instead of the ideas, you fail to reach the people you want to reach and you marginalize yourself and alienate those people from you.

Should you reject anti-vaxxing and homeopathy? Yes. Those ideas are distinctly and decidedly unscientific. But saying "You believe in those things and therefore you are not allowed to be a skeptic" is bigotry, not science. In fact, you should ENCOURAGE them to be a skeptic, because nobody starts out skeptical about EVERYTHING. If you reject them for believing things that make sense to them from a lack of information, then they have no impetus to investigate their own beliefs, no impetus to question these things, and you have pretty much shoved them down into their own ignorance. If, on the other hand, you encourage them to investigate other things that are maybe not so emotionally charged for them, they will almost certainly reach a point at which they question their status on those things, as well.

Reply

Gary

2/20/2017 06:20:58 pm

V, they are free to explore their own beliefs as much as anyone, but we are talking about openly criticizing their claims, not joining a club. There is no religious test for joining the Skeptics Society. Why would skeptics keep quiet about the things I mentioned? To make them feel more comfortable? They are the very ideas that skeptics are against. So why would they have to keep mum about religion, too?

Kal

2/19/2017 03:48:22 pm

Rational thinking and rationalism might be different things.

Idealism and ideology are different.

Belief that one person knows it all is folly. One person cannot know it all. They can only claim to.

And why not have a Bigfoot finding day, as a joke in a university. It would be fun, I think. The professor knows full well it's a fake, but is doing it for fun. No need to make a law about it. That is wasting more time and money than having a field day looking for a fictional character. He knows the outcome will be there is no bigfoot, but he does it anyway. They can show clips of Harry and the Hendersons as a false proof and use it to show the objectivity and critical thinking. It could be a teachable moment.

The commenters are not going to solve the science vs religion angle in their comments, but like finding bigfoot, they're welcome to rant. They still will not know it all.

Reply

V

2/19/2017 04:12:03 pm

“I just think that a belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history."

The funny thing is that this statement actually violates one of atheism's basic tenets, which is that science explains the world. Because science has found that religion can actually be a very GOOD thing. When done properly, it provides a sense of community and belonging, and a sense of support, that goes a long, long way toward helping keep one's mental health in a good place. And while it's true that support groups and chess clubs and so forth do exist outside religion, and that often people aren't engaging in religion in a way that provides those things--see: someone struggling with their sexuality in a restrictive congregation--that does not negate the fact that religion has been shown by science to be a generally positive thing.

Atheism has specifically been found to NOT provide those same benefits, by some of the same studies.

Now, mind you, I am more in the "agnostic" end of things, or as I like to phrase it, "I don't give a fuck, I'm LIVING now and what happens when I die can be a problem when I die," but I'm also a passionate student of history, and blanket statements about how "evil" religion is always have bothered me, since history doesn't show that, either. It only shows that like literally EVERY OTHER THING that humanity has touched, religion has been put to both good and bad uses.

And I've always thought of skepticism as "question everything." I went through a period of being devoutly pagan, because my questions led me to feel that it was the right thing to believe at the time. Certain experiences that I had were at the time, and with the knowledge I had at the time, best explained in that fashion, and my attitude has always been "Is the tiger real or an illusion? If you behave as if it's real, you won't find out the hard way that it's not an illusion." And maybe my questioning led me past that, or maybe I'm just at a point in my life where I don't need the support those beliefs gave me, but either way, I never stopped questioning, and I never stopped applying logic even to my own beliefs.

If that's NOT skepticism, then I still prefer my view. I think it makes life a lot less dreary to be able to SEE the magic, even if you don't believe it.

Reply

A Buddhist

2/19/2017 04:36:52 pm

You conflate atheism (the belief that there is no god) with scientism (the belief the science can explain everything).

Reply

Dubious f

2/19/2017 05:31:42 pm

And why are you confusing scientiism with science. Science is knowledge, it doesn't have the audacity to believe it can explain everything.....yet.... Let us not tie as a whole, the empirical world vs the perceived universe. Also,atheism is not just about god. It's also about the life-after that if you think about it, doesn't need a god really. Lights out.

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 05:56:33 pm

Atheism does not, inherently, have anything to say about the possibility of consciousness continuing beyond the cessation of function of the four-dimensional physical body, which indeed, whether or not you think about it "doesn't need a god really".

V

2/19/2017 08:07:33 pm

See, the scientists in my life have been very specific. They have always told me that science CAN explain everything...and that that is not the same statement as that science DOES explain everything. Regardless, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not also a "believer in scientism," a term that I admit I have never heard before today. I have, however, repeatedly heard this one:

"If an atheist doesn't believe in God, what does he believe in?"
"Science."

So if it is not a basic tenet of atheism, perhaps someone should inform atheists of this.

Regardless, I stand by my statements with regards to what science has to say about the benefits of religion and the lack of those benefits of atheism. None of which, I will add, made any statement whatever about the actual nature of whether or not there is any kind of independent supernatural reality, only that "religion" is not the "pure evil" that was claimed in the quote.

...also, Dubious F, "empirical" IS inherently "perceived," because the definition of empirical is "verifiable by observation or experience," meaning that it's what you have PERCEIVED. And technically, an empirical world could include a supernatural element, as "experience" is extremely subjective.

Perhaps you meant to say "let us not tie as a whole independent reality vs. perceived universe"?

David Bradbury

2/20/2017 03:58:20 am

"the scientists in my life have been very specific. They have always told me that science CAN explain everything...and that that is not the same statement as that science DOES explain everything. "

It's also not the same statement as that science can explain everything correctly !

Merging skepticism and atheism into one single inseparable concept is very narrow-minded. It is valid as your personal choice, but it is not valid as a measure for tolerance. This concept will inevitably end up in intolerance, and will not help spreading rationality.

By the way: It is relatively easy to doubt traditional concepts of god ... but there is also a philosophical concept of god ... and as far as I noticed, the usual atheist has no arguments against it. He is even not aware of this concept.

And this intolerance is especially bad when considering Christianity and Islam.

Christianity has had its rational reforms in protestantism, the development of historical-critical thinking, Thomism and the Catholic Second Vatican Council. And these reformed Christians still are religious. Does anybody want to express the opinion that all these reforms were worthless? Does anybody want to express the opinion that you can only be a bigot fanatic or an atheist, but nothing in between? Have "fun" with the society you will create by this ....

And how do these atheist "high-flyers" want to integrate Islam into our world of freedom without the perspective of rational reforms within (!) religion? Do you want to wait until all Muslims converted to atheism before you integrate them? Have "fun" with the world you will create by this .......

Again, Donald Trump is much smarter. He said:

Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.

My Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings.

We must use ideological warfare as well.

Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam. To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow.

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.

End of Trump's words.

Reply

Uncle Ron

2/19/2017 08:37:59 pm

Ending the cold war by demonstrating that the economics of an arms race are destructive to society as a whole is a far cry from deterring an individual who believes that he is guaranteed entry into paradise by killing infidels. He has nothing to gain by turning away from his beliefs and every incentive to maintain them.

Reply

Lurker Un-cloaking

2/19/2017 11:47:17 pm

You are annoying, Mr. Franke, and it is hard to tell whether the worst of it is your continued repetition of the drivellings of the mentally unbalanced creature squatting in the Oval Office at present, or your resolutely a-historical view of religious development, whether that religion be Christianity or Islam.

You seem to imagine, from the list of items you cite as defining Christian development to the modern day, that Christianity underwent rational reform. It of course did no such thing. The period known as The Reformation was marked by extremities of violence and oppression. Catholic powers persecuted Protestants, and the leading Protestant sects, once they had some extent of power themselves, did the same, against Catholics and adherents of other Protestant sects. This went on for well over a century, and culminated in the Thirty Years War, which killed on the close order of one third of the population of central Europe, a toll comparable to the Black Death in a similar span of time. Disagreements between Christians of varying persuasions ceased to be killing matters not because of some great advance in rationality among the Christian populace or clergy, but because the various autocratic rulers of Europe's states came to understand pressing religious differences to the pike and musket was bad for business --- cost a great deal of money, created a potential 'fifth column' of devoted dissenters in their state, and so led to instability of every sort. Various accommodations were reached allowing religious dissenters to at least live, if not enjoy anything like full rights of citizenship, and state and dynastic quarrels in future were mostly conducted without cries of 'God wills it!' either on the battlefield or in the throne room. Theological development or a philosophical conception of deity had nothing to do with it. It was simply the calculated self-interest of the apex predators in the politico-economic eco-system of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe. That the sky did not fall, that divine wrath was not obviously kindled by incorrect worship occurring nearby did have some eroding effect on how seriously religious belief came to be taken among the general populace, and it is that which has come to be the true saving grace of the West, and the necessary condition of the modern society grown up around us, the simple fact that even religious people in the West do not take their religion very seriously. Even those who appear as fanatic believers by contrast to the majority of their fellows do not really take it very seriously, not by compare to how seriously ordinary people took their religion several centuries ago in France or Spain or England or the various German principalities.

There is nothing whatever about the dogmas or theology of Christianity that is much improved over the centuries, nor is there much of anything in the dogmas or theology of Christianity that can be appealed to honestly to show any great advantage over those of Islam. There are some differing historical factors that give some different shadings to the two cultures, however.

Christianity began as a minority sect existing outside of, and largely hostile to, the existing political and legal framework. Continuing in this state for centuries, there rose up in Christian thought the idea that obedience to their deity and obedience to the state were not necessarily same, certainly not if the state was in the hands of persons who were not Christians. When Christianity at last became the religion of the state, then obedience to the state and to the deity were one and the same, though churchmen considered themselves gifted with authority to judge whether the state actually was acting in a proper obedience to the deity (at least for a while...).

Though Islam began as a minority sect, it fairly soon came to achieve wide dominance, and did so through military action, rather than through some fortunate change in a ruling despot's heart. Islam was not just born to glory, but born in glory, and so there is unavoidably a harkening to past glories in Islamic culture. In any difficult present, this will be more appealing and its influence more marked. This first became acute when the Mongols sacked Damascus in the thirteenth century. Reacting to such a thing as a punishment from the deity for falling off from the true way was a natural enough reaction: indeed, it is pretty much identical to how the Old Testament instructed the Hebrews to regard their defeats by Assyria and Babylon. It was the course taken by Islamic thinkers and political authorities, and it was, and has been, largely stuck to.

It is worth pausing to point out that the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity, as it was imagined to have been in the beginning, before the Catholic clergy added and i

Reply

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 12:25:28 am

It is worth pausing to point out that the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity, as it was imagined to have been in the beginning, before the Catholic clergy added and interpreted and ritualized or whatever. Islam has had a number of such reformations over the centuries. Tamurlane assailed the Moslem ruler of southeastern Europe, and the Moslem ruler of much of the Indian sub-continent, on the grounds accommodations they extended to their unbelieving subjects betrayed the pure ways of Islam he defended and embodied. The Wahhabi arose in Arabia in the eighteenth century as a purifying movement to restore the pure practices and devotions of Islam at the beginning, as they conceived these to be. The Deobandi rose in the nineteenth century, in what is now Pakistan, with a similar purpose, though flavored with a distinct rancor towards the West, English soldiers being established nearby at the time.

The ascendancy of the West over Islam established absolutely in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, presented Islamic society with the same sort of moral crisis the Mongol sack of Damascus had. Some elements of the political and social elite sought to learn and adopt to profit the new ways, most elements of the religious leadership did not --- not too dissimilar to the attitudes of a great portion of Christian clergy even today to modern social developments. Rule by Western powers meant the imposition of Western law on Islamic societies, and this tended to increase popular affection for, and attachment to, traditional law. One imagines that an Anglo-Saxon populace subjected for several generation to rule by the tenets of Imperial Confucianism, would pine for the Common Law, and view restoration of Common Law jurisprudence as a final mark that foreign dominion had come to a final end. One may well regard Sharia as a poisonous system, and I make no comment on its quality here either way, in no small part because, Mr. Franke, I strongly doubt you know enough about the subject to discuss it sensibly, but it is a well established feature of human nature that people will prefer their own ways to those of a foreigner, especially when the latter are imposed by force.

Both the Bush administration, and President Obama, adopted the policy of supporting modernizing elements in Islamic society and isolating and stigmatizing the more violent sects arising from the puritan reformation which has been going on in modern Islam for decades. Mr. Bush, to pt it kindly, misjudged badly in some particulars what actions would have the best effect advancing this policy, but he did make the right choice at the most basic level, establishing that the was not hostile to Islam itself, nor had any intention of being hostile to Islam itself. President Obama continued on this line, albeit with much better aim.

The idea that a campaign promise to bar Moslems from entering the United States is somehow going to eventuate in strengthening the hand of Moslems resisting the puritan reformationists who are attacking them and their society is beyond ludicrous. Officers directing troops in combat against Daesh in Mosul have complained to correspondents they would not be allowed to visit family they have sent to the United States for safety while they fight. The words you have cited are simply noise, nothing more. Those portions of that noise referencing treatment of women and homosexuals raise hypocrisy to an art sublime as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They come from the chieftain of a party which has made rolling back the rights of women's and the rights of homosexuals a major focus of campaign and legislative activity for decades.

Clint Knapp

2/20/2017 12:48:17 am

Feeling more and more like a lurker myself for want of time to spend commenting, I simply say thanks for that.

Franke's blindered ilk take up too much of my in-person time these days to keep responding to them all here, too. Glad someone's keeping up the voice of reason.

David Bradbury

2/20/2017 04:01:55 am

" the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity"

If what Christ actually expounded was more rational than what Christianity later became, then going backwards would, in philosophical terms, be a useful preliminary to heading in the right direction.

You are right, that every kind of religious reform wants to re-establish the initial intention of a religion, i.e. it wants to go "back".

Yet ...... this does not necessarily mean that things become worse. Because the first step of going back is to find out what a religion was and wanted, in the beginnings. And as in the case of Christianity, you will find in the case of Islam, that the beginnings of Islam were different to what traditionalist Muslims think. They were more peaceful, more educated and more "Western"-like than they imagine. No warlord slaughtering Jews ....

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 09:25:02 am

Clint Knapp

"Feeling more and more like a lurker myself for want of time to spend commenting, I simply say thanks for that.

Franke's blindered ilk take up too much of my in-person time these days to keep responding to them all here, too. Glad someone's keeping up the voice of reason."

Thank you, Mr. Knapp. It is too bad it was necessary. It is pretty clear Franke is just posting to display his political views, and too lazy even to find a decent pretext on which to hang the screed.

I like this place. I have read enough to feel pretty sure I could have long political wrangles with several of the regulars, but I would not set such in motion here; that is not what Mr. Colavito's forum is for.

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 10:14:25 am

David Bradbury

" ' the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity'

"If what Christ actually expounded was more rational than what Christianity later became, then going backwards would, in philosophical terms, be a useful preliminary to heading in the right direction."

Stating as a general principle that, if something has become overlaid with irrationality over time, a return to basics would produce an increase in rationality is all well and good, Mr. Bradbury.

But there is no evidence on which to argue this is true in the case of Christianity, nor to argue that the Protestant Reformation represents an advance on Catholicism in terms of rationality of outlook.

I do not want to press this into an argument concerning rights and wrongs of a religion, and so will state only these two things.

First, all documents purporting to contain words of the man come down to us as Jesus Christ, and purporting to describe his actions and those of his immediate followers, are documents prepared as broadsides in theological disputes already underway when they were circulated. This means that they cannot be taken 'straight' but rather require a considerable chaser, and that requires recognition that they will have been cherry-picked and otherwise shaped to the author's disputational intent. They are not windows into any recoverable 'real' teaching or historical account.

Second, it seems at least the most likely view is that the man come down to us as Jesus Christ preached the imminent end of the world. It hardly needs to be said that is not a rational expectation, and it certainly was a failed one, as we remain here below in this vale of tears. It may be stated further, I think, with some confidence, that this person may well have differed from others preaching at the time on this line in expounding the view that the ultimate test of whether one was righteous in the sight of the deity was not adherence to the strictest letter of the Law but rather to the spirit of the Law, and further, to unquestioning belief that he himself was the Messiah in the flesh. One may view the former as a rational view, but none can view the latter as rational. Should an attempt be made to 'recover' the first element (and remember, that element remains in good part conjectural owing to the quality of sources available), it is not particularly easy to argue that the Protestant platform of 'scripture only' is a superior tool to the Catholic platform of scripture, commentary by early Christian leaders, subsequent conclusions by learned scholars, and inspired thought, taken all together. I am far from defending as righteous and correct the views and practices of the Catholic Church in the period when the Reformation began, but I think it is very hard to argue the Protestants' views and actions were either more rational or more wise, or even, for that matter, measurably closer to recovery of some 'real' original Christian teaching.

Fundamentalism, as an outlook in general, always tends towards the militant and the inflexible, as it is a defensive reaction from people whose beliefs and even social systems are put to great stress by external events which are in some sense hostile to those beliefs and customs. It does not matter whether these impacts actually are hostile by intent, or simply are things which ought not to even be possible by the lights of the believer. The effect will be the same --- the awakening of doubts which cannot be accepted but must be beaten off and beaten down. Otherwise, beliefs and customs must change, and if these are invested with sacredness, changing them is most difficult.

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 10:44:49 am

"You are right, that every kind of religious reform wants to re-establish the initial intention of a religion, i.e. it wants to go "back".

Yet ...... this does not necessarily mean that things become worse. Because the first step of going back is to find out what a religion was and wanted, in the beginnings. And as in the case of Christianity, you will find in the case of Islam, that the beginnings of Islam were different to what traditionalist Muslims think. They were more peaceful, more educated and more "Western"-like than they imagine. No warlord slaughtering Jews .... "

In short, Mr. Franke, you have always been at war with Eastasia, and in fact quite half the posters up on your walls for the mandated Hate have the wrong face on the villain --- clear evidence of sabotage! Never fear, Dear Leader will see it all right with his ineffable strength and wisdom!

I will say only that the idea there is some liberal pure past to Islam that the vast bulk of its adherents and clergy have somehow failed to realize and expound is as monumentally silly an idea as is the idea there is some liberal pure past to Christianity that the vast bulk of its adherents and clergy have somehow failed to realize and expound.

Only two things seem to rival that for silliness, Mr. Franke.

One is the view, so common among Christian fundamentalist political leaders and their followers, that not only are the most radical and violent sects of the Moslem reformation the only ones who have penetrated to and expound the true tenets of Islam, but that all Moslems must be considered in agreement with these sects, and merely dissemble when they deny that, as part of their grand plan to take over the West and destroy Christianity, which will be activated any moment, any minute now....

The other is the idea that racist bigot, currently squatting in the Oval Office, a man who is not just profoundly irreligious in his life but profoundly ignorant of religion, as he is of all philosophy and learning, a man willing to arouse and cater to popular hatred of a religion for political gain, will somehow midwife a social movement in a foreign culture which will bring about a reformation to modernity of its religion and society, the very religion he exploits popular hatred of in his own polity.

Did I say that Christianity or Islam had a "liberal" past? I did not. So please do not produce FAKE news, here.

And yes: Islam haters (and traditionalist Muslims) who say that Islam started its life by a warlord slaughtering Jews, and that Islam cannot be reformed in principle, those Islam haters (and traditionalist Muslims) are wrong. Simply wrong.

And yes: This knowlege arouse only in recent decades. Science makes progress. Step by step. And it needs time to sink in. Sometimes much time. But I doubt that YOU ever will grasp it. Sometimes scientific progress is only possible by death of the proponents of the old paradigm. If you want to try before death: Read e.g. Tom Holland, In the shadow of the sword.

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 01:30:51 pm

Actually, Mr. Franke, you did say that:

"They were more peaceful, more educated and more "Western"-like than they imagine."

That is an awfully concise evocation of a liberal outlook, and that is what you have claimed is the 'true' background of Islam. That there there was at the start of Christianity such a 'pure' liberal teaching is a common enough view on the left. In the former case, espousing it simply comes from being unable to let go of the idea that one's native religion and 'good and moral belief and behavior' are one and the same --- therefore, what one finds good and moral must be there to find somewhere in the religious belief one was reared up in. In your case, regarding Islam, the idea that there was something "... more peaceful, more educated and more "Western"-like ..." in the origin of Islam, is simply an attempt to evade the fact that you have pledged your political troth to a particularly ugly bigot, and so you put on a bit of rhodium plate, hoping some will see a shine of tolerance instead of the base metal of your allegiance to bigotry and a hateful bigot. But cheap plating fools no one who does not want to be fooled.

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the history of Islam is aware of the flaws in the sources, and that there has been almost no critical examination of the sacred documents. An analogous state for study of Christianity would be if one were confronted with the canon set in the days of Constantine, and had no record of what went before, or the debates behind the decisions to choose or discard this or that text.

On one hand, all this means is that recovering a 'true' or 'historical' Mohammed is little more likely than recovering a 'true' or 'historical' Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, it suggests that there really is not a great deal to stack up by way of solid evidence against established views, and that any such line is vanishingly unlikely to overthrow traditional views among believers, whether lay or clergy.

The record of lone iconoclast authors overthrowing established consensus among scholars with the lightning of one revisionist volumn is not good. Nothing about this book suggests it will provide any deviation from that norm.

David Bradbury

2/20/2017 02:10:34 pm

"the awakening of doubts which cannot be accepted but must be beaten off and beaten down."
But the significant thing about the Reformation was that the doubts were not sucessfully beaten down, and the Magisterium ceased to be the gatekeeper of knowledge in western Europe. If Christianity could be questioned, so could everything else.

" 'the awakening of doubts which cannot be accepted but must be beaten off and beaten down.'

But the significant thing about the Reformation was that the doubts were not successfully beaten down, and the Magisterium ceased to be the gatekeeper of knowledge in western Europe. If Christianity could be questioned, so could everything else. "

The Reformation questioned Catholicism, Mr. Bradbury. It did not question Christianity. Elements of it went so far as to question whether Catholicism was Christian, and if one looks, these can still be found today, even in some seemingly respectable Protestant circles. But no one questioned the ascription of divinity to Jesus Christ. Even such things as rejection of salvation by works, declaring it to be by grace alone, and the extra wrinkle of pre-destination to salvation or perdition, were not attacks on the basic structure of Christian belief, and certainly were not perceived as questioning Christianity by the early preachers of and adherents to such ideas.

Luther was reacting to corruption in the Catholic Church on a public level, and on a private level to an oppressive consciousness of sin for which no relief could be found through the rites and practices of Catholicism. The Reformation was not a reaction to pressures of innovation, of an accelerating rate of change in economic and social life. If anything, it was rather the final step in a disillusion which began when the apparent Apocalypse of the Black Death proved to not actually be the end of the world, which let loose quite a few earnest questionings about the nature of deity and prophecy. But that would be getting awfully far into the weeds to press further.

Fundamentalism is a distinctly modern development, and it is separate from puritanism

Puritanism occurs within a society and culture which does not question that a religion is the basic ground of social life, but only disputes the efficacy of certain religious practices. Viewing some practices (often quite popular ones) as worthless, usually because they are ascribed to human corruption or backsliding, Puritanism suggests other ways, better grounded in original practice, as that is conceived to have been, which will be, because they are purified of encrusting dross, certain to be more efficacious.

Fundamentalism occurs within religious elements of a society in which the idea that religion is basic to life has been put into question. It is a rear-guard defense of the very idea of the religion adhered to, against perceived assault from the society containing that religion. It necessarily focuses on some very simple points of doctrine, which all adherents can and must uphold and cling to, and these must be emotionally stirring, in order to maximize recruitment and devotion. It is a peculiarly modern development, and in the West cannot be traced back much before the last years of the nineteenth century.

Fundamentalists and Puritans may share many points of doctrine and even of belief and practice, but they remain as different as porpoises and tuna fish: whatever external similarities may strike the eye, internally they are very different beasts.

David Bradbury

2/20/2017 07:05:13 pm

"The Reformation questioned Catholicism, Mr. Bradbury. It did not question Christianity. Elements of it went so far as to question whether Catholicism was Christian, and if one looks, these can still be found today, even in some seemingly respectable Protestant circles. But no one questioned the ascription of divinity to Jesus Christ."

That depends on your view of when the Reformation ended- Unitarians, for example, do question the ascription of divinity to Jesus Christ.

Lurker Un-Cloaking

2/20/2017 08:56:44 pm

I suppose, Mr. Bradbury, the Socinians could be brought forth from within the conventional time frame.

Da Romaius

2/19/2017 06:44:43 pm

Jason is not right yet T. Franke has declared victory for him. Such premature declarations are a common occurrence amongst those who do not understand debate or the nature of war.

1. Jason is not right in his implied complaint that older 1st generation atheists(of which I am one) need to pass the baton because we are cranky and are getting "political". Science and atheism have always been political entities that evolved over time and one's youthful crankiness with us old folks doesn't change that. Atheism and skepticsm should embrace human rights, there is no logical reason not to and if religion gets in the ways so sad for them. We are all in the same boat but only those who willing to row get to go.

2. T. Franke apparently loves jingos and alternative facts but those are not enough cover their ass when they proudly quote a demonstrable idiot. The West declared victory in something that was not a war or even a battle. The West certainly did not expose the evils of communism or the virtues of free market capitalism. Communism is certainly not an evil and free market capitalism has sure turned out to be such.
Facts are facts.

Actually, I think that the older generation of skeptics is set in their ways in terms of media utilization and thus produce boring products. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't kept up with the times, and skeptic groups in general aren't engaging with younger audiences as effectively as they could. But I won't back down on the idea that atheism and secular humanism are not synonymous with skepticism. If you label critical thinking as a political position, it's no wonder that people who aren't liberals, atheists, and secular humanists see irrationalism and fantasy as legitimate alternatives.

There is no specific reason to link atheism to secular humanism and skepticism. One could be, for example, atheist and anarchist, or atheist and nihilist. Similarly, one can be a secular humanist and also a deist. The point is that the iron triangle of secular humanism, atheism, and skepticism is an artifact of the Paul Kurtz school of the 1970s, and it shouldn't be assumed to be natural or even the only way to engage in critical thinking.

Reply

Da Romaius

2/21/2017 01:50:51 am

The emphasis on the aging Skeptical Inquirer is superfluous as I believe you and others are doing just fine reaching other skeptics and atheists with many, many blogs and podcasts. We arrive at our perspectives by roads as diverse as our individual selves so focusing on one publication and some fussy old atheists seems a bit narrow minded to me. I'm not defending we fussy old atheists, I'm just sayin'.

You have not mentioned the one overarching factor leading to the prevalence of modern atheism, skepticism and secular humanism, science. I don't know if this is the Iron Triangle you referred to as I am not familiar with Paul Kurtz, I have read very few books about atheism, secular humanism and skepticism. I tend to read history, archeology and science literature.

Science gives us the tools to better understand ourselves, and perhaps work together to save us from ourselves. Science is the specific reason to link all three together, atheism, secular humanism and skepticism, all three are part of a dynamic enterprise with an emphasis on recognizing(and hopefully not repeating) the mistakes of the past while building an equitable future.

We are a political species, everything we do as a species is political in some way, for good or for ill. We're at a crossroads now, will we survive our own hubris?

> I think that the older generation of skeptics is set in their ways in terms of media utilization and thus produce boring products.

Readers of the MUFON journal and attendees of UFO conferences would say the same about their leadership. The journal has recently added colour but has fallen into recycling old case articles and the giving nearly all its remaining space to "name" columnists who says the same old thing. (Stan Friedman writes the same 20 or so paragraphs each issue, he just changes the proper names and sometimes the order of the paragraphs.) Conferences invite the usual suspects, where never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are chemtrail-y all day.

But fringers have made much better use of the internet. That is clear.

David Bradbury

2/19/2017 07:29:29 pm

"The West certainly did not expose the evils of communism or the virtues of free market capitalism. Communism is certainly not an evil and free market capitalism has sure turned out to be such."

Basic failure of logical thought there.
To state that communism has evils and free market capitalism has virtues is not at all the same as stating that communism is "an evil" and free market capitalism is purely virtuous.

Reply

Da Romaius

2/21/2017 01:56:12 am

It was not presented as logical thought, Anyone could see that if they didn't have logic axe grinding blinding their vision. This why many atheists are so boring.

David Bradbury

2/21/2017 03:47:56 am

Point taken. Any statement which repeatedly uses the word "certainly" is indeed unlikely to be based on logical thought.

V

2/19/2017 08:23:49 pm

1. SKEPTICISM should not be dependent on a specific political point of view, and if you think it should, you need to "pass the baton" before you hurt your cause, regardless of your age. Skepticism should be applied to ALL political thinking, because politics is inherently biased. ATHEISM can be as political as it wants, since it is, by definition, a particular sociopolitical view.

2. "Evils" and "virtues" are value judgements and thus inherently are not facts. They are opinions. As for showing the harmful effects of communism and the beneficial effects of free-market capitalism--which are quantifiable in numbers and data and thus are factual--both have shown their own flaws and their own successes without outside help. Communism as a sociopolitical movement has tended to show itself as unsustainable in the long run and generally oppressive to its population base in terms of growth, income, and health and welfare of the populace. So has true free-market capitalism, which we have not actually had since the early 20th century; we have lived in a regulated capitalist economy since the 1940s.

Reply

Da Romaius

2/21/2017 02:02:36 am

Skepticism is a human perspective, humans are always being political even whilst they swear they aren't. What is your cause? Do you even know what my cause is?

Whoa, boy. You've poked the seething topic I've been not very adequately suppressing for 2 years. I am a CSI Scientific and Technical Consultant, yet they never ask me to participate in anything (except to volunteer for conference organizing). You are correct in that they can't be original. Hell, they stole The Amazing Meeting concept (all but the name, which they can't legally use) for an annual conference (of just like minds preaching to the choir).

When the RDF merged with CFI, I spoke personally to the new director Robyn Blumner who succeeded the utter failure, Lindsay. I made my case that skepticism was a untapped niche and the people WANTED to hear a strong skeptical voice. They needed to BE that voice. Nope. Dawkins was so awesome that they were intent on staying the course. PLEASE do more public outreach, I said. Oh we will... They did nothing but beg for more money. For what?!

I refuse to give them any money or social support, and I pay no attention to their social media anymore.

The Lindsay years did much to kill off any reasonable person's admiration. They promoted toxic people like Rebecca Watson, Amy Davis Roth, and Melody Hensley who led them on a thoughtless course into social justice area (even more of a muddy mess than atheism) like "Women in Secularism". Both women were disastrous for PR, leading many to abandon the community entirely, especially women. Hensley claimed Twitter gave her PTSD and Watson so divisive, deliberately stirring controversy as well as being completely unqualified for her "science communication" efforts. CSI supported them fully. It was ridiculous. Someone (possibly Hensley and/or Roth) had a hand in trying to "blacklist" me from conferences. When I provided a reasoned opinion on why this was REALLY REALLY BAD for skepticism in general, Lindsay seemed surprised and never took it seriously. I was snubbed by others in CSI, even chastised.

I have contributed to CSI as a volunteer and writer since 2000. I was the ONLY female contributor to the latest anniversary issue (part 1 - there were a few, maybe 3, other women in part 2). When I remarked on that, they were quick to gloss over it. I saw it as GLARING. It is mainly due to Ben Radford (that Lindsay and CSI screwed over by not supporting him in the Stollznow lawsuit) that I continue to write or be mentioned in their publications. Also, Ken Frazier seemed to appreciate my contributions even though I am critical. Ken is removed from the day to day workings of CSI being in New Mexico.

I could go on and on and on but I sort of promised I would quit beating a dead horse. And it is really dead to me. In the final year of the JREF, as a consultant, I proposed what I thought was a public-oriented set of actions. (BTW, if it wasn't for me and a few other very key people, the JREF forum, now International Skeptics, would have simply been closed and deleted.) That tanked along with the organization. CSI refuses to listen and behaves just as you stated above. Shermer's Skeptics Society has a publication that is completely unreadable IMO and even slower to change than CSI (with the exception of Jr. Skeptic which is the only excellent part of the publication.) The skeptical community feeling has collapsed, the institutions are either dead or might as well be. The money comes from those advocating atheism, even anti-religious people, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE OTHER ORGS THAT DO THIS! They have completely missed their chance to be a true voice in today's post-fact world and embrace the role of being an educational and public organization promoting practical skepticism and critical thinking.

It's a damn shame. Many people warned them. They are as closed-minded as any believer. It's doubtful I will ever again contribute to this "skeptical" movement in the official sense unless it gets an entire reboot. I don't see that happening soon. When we needed them more than ever, they utterly failed.

Thanks, Sharon, for sharing that insider information. You're right that it is sad that the organization is so wedded to a specific agenda that they are marginalizing themselves into irrelevance.

I've often thought about how I would run a foundation dedicated to actual practical skepticism, critical thinking, and science and/or history education. I sometimes think about how much more I could do if I received a full-time salary to do it. I know there are lots of people who have great ideas, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for them! It takes too much money to start up a new organization, especially if you aren't starting out with an endowment.

Reply

Americanegro

2/20/2017 03:45:49 pm

Hopefully you could silo some teams, curate and taxonomise the legacy information, pivot with focus groups, and pilot a MUCH SHORTER RANTS initiative. Jeebers, that was a long slog.

JLH

2/20/2017 11:00:32 pm

Patreon, Kickstarter. New model built on new modes.

When you're ready Jason, I'll do my part to contribute and support.

PNO TECH

2/19/2017 08:41:56 pm

As a reformed militant atheist and current lazy agnostic I heartily agree with Jason. Perhaps the capital S Skepticism is the problem. I prod people toward critical thinking quietly, politely and seditiously; were I to deny their faith I would never get to plant any seeds.
Marginalizing or excluding someone from the conversation does not help our cause.

Thank you for the CCC159 reference V: I don't believe I had actually read that before

Reply

Kathleen

2/19/2017 11:25:58 pm

"methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith" CCC159

So reason and scientific method can be can be considered an act of faith! What will that evil Vatican think of next?!

Reply

Harry

2/19/2017 11:03:08 pm

I have a soft spot in my heart for James Randi because he was the first to debunk some of the bad claims I heard as a youth and helped to develop my critical skills, for which I will always be grateful, but I also have a similar reaction to his militant atheism as Jason (not least because I am still a theist).

Reply

S. Madison

2/20/2017 12:33:30 am

Jason you said, "Lindsay concluded with a call for support (read: money) for “appropriate science-based public policies,” happily conflating skepticism and secular humanism, and assuming that science can dictate public policies rather than merely inform a selection of policy options."

I fully agree with your assessment and I would add that this has been the problem with the promotion of skepticism by major skeptical organization from the get go. There was always way too much focus on 'conclusions' and activism about conclusions rather than promoting the methodology of skepticism.

The goal should always have been to educate people on how to think critically. That's a very inclusive goal as there is no litmus test of beliefs one must hold to learn skeptic methodology. Instead, we focused on conclusions and if a person didn't believe in all the 'right' conclusions then they were made to feel that their participation and attendance were unwelcome.

I attended many TAMs and often tried to engage with other attendees in areas of the hotel outside the conference center. If I wasn't wearing my conference badge while trying to have a conversation with those who were wearing badges, I was often treated with arrogance and dismissiveness. Skeptic organizations created an exclusive little club with a purity test for membership.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:37:41 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:37:54 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:38:15 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:38:44 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:38:59 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

BigNick

2/20/2017 12:39:05 am

I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
I cannot offer proof of these ghosts. But I know they are real. The point jason is trying to make is that skepticism should be a process of rational thought. Not a dogma or religion in and of itself. If I were to be excluded by other skeptics because I believe one thing. Then I, along with many others, might as well start buying Scott wolter books.

Reply

Americanegro

2/20/2017 04:44:40 pm

Bignick, would you say you consider yourself a skeptic? Just wondering.

I believe in not ghosts and not ghosts trumps ghosts.

Reply

JLH

2/21/2017 02:16:55 pm

I suspect there may be something more to the ghost phenomenon as well as a couple other traditionally fringe ideas, BUT I look to the scientific method to prove it out. I suspect you're in the same boat. Unfortunately the prevalence of "ghost hunters" and self-proclaimed psychics creates way too much signal-to-noise and also chills actual research.

My issue with physicalism (as opposed to materialism) is that not only is it currently insufficient for answering the BIG questions, but that it tends to reject the premise that the questions are important in the first place. The theologian Denys Turner turned me on to this perspective in Jonathan Miller's Atheism Tapes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zsihrTjsAY).

The point being, I apply an evidence-based approach to understanding the world and our role in it. My conclusions may differ from run-of-the-mill materialists, but I consider myself a skeptic all the same.

Reply

Clint Knapp

2/20/2017 01:08:08 am

Honestly, I never paid any of the big-name skeptical organizations or figures a lick of attention unless they're mentioned here, and whether they merge and unite in their ideals is entirely meaningless to me. I can appreciate the stance that they don't get to dictate what it means to be a skeptic, though.

As for James Randi, well, I'm not entirely convinced he's not still acting the part of the stage magician- whose first and only job is to convince the audience that his hands are doing exactly what his mouth says they are. He's just found a trick that's harder to pull, and likes the challenge of it.

Reply

Americanegro

2/20/2017 09:05:35 pm

You might want to read up on how he got duped by his boytoy, not a good look for a skeptic magician.

Reply

JLH

2/21/2017 02:41:57 pm

Can you provide some Google terms? I'm reluctant to have "boytoy" appear in my search history.

Americanegro

2/21/2017 05:10:15 pm

Sure! "Spank your lunch" "Latino fraud love machine" "elderly man lothario scandal".... They should all get you where you want to go, as well as finding information on Randi.

Alternatively, consider growing a set.

JLH

2/21/2017 07:55:06 pm

It was more that you provided insufficient information to investigate. To be sure, I have much worse than "boytoy" in my history.

But hey, thanks for your critique of my manliness. I'll be sure to give your input the attention it deserves.

Americanegro

2/22/2017 01:24:49 am

You were the one soliciting a young feller to come over and hold your hand while you worked your mouse so you could hide your "interests".

"To be sure, I have much worse than "boytoy" in my history."

You said it not me. How's this workin' out for ya?

Oh, and yes, you will certainly give my input your attention.

Again, how's this workin' out for ya?

Abraxas

2/20/2017 06:52:40 am

Jason, you should immediately submit this (or a version of it) to The Skeptical Enquirer as a letter to the editor. It's probably the best editorial I've read about the subject of why militant atheism isn't doing any favors for the proliferation of critical thinking.

It is, in fact, doing harm to that movement, in my opinion. I believe that getting people to think critically is much more important than aggressively promoting atheism, because the latter will never precede the former when it comes to religious people. It's a backwards method of indoctrination, like putting the cart before the horse.

No intelligent religious person in middle America (or anywhere) is going to come to the conclusion -- on their own -- that their belief system is wrong, before they learn to think critically. The promotion of new Atheism is a cancer that's just creating more strife and controversy than need-be, and it's certainly not converting people en masse to skeptics.

This blog entry is a very articulate summation of the issue and I wish more skeptics could read it. But then, you're right about the ultra-aggressive atheists almost becoming similar to Christian fundamentalists in their zeal... I'm afraid that too many of them would be so set in their ways, they would forget the tenets of their own skepticism and won't realize their own "faith" is blinding them.

Reply

JLH

2/21/2017 02:38:29 pm

Agreed 100%!

I suggest everyone should be working to publicize Jason's blog as a prelude to a skepticism movement revival/renewal. Use Twitter, Facebook, human-face, whatever. This is the future of the movement.

Reply

Kal

2/20/2017 03:38:58 pm

Some of your commenters really want to be bloggers! Whew, Why doesn't this Lurker have a link to all of his or her commentary, where they can spout off all day? Why come here? Just saying.

I agree about skeptics and some religious people being somehow out there.

I also agree that we caused Trump to happen. It is our mess as Americans. We have to own up to it. We've been owned, as the millennials say.

Reply

JLH

2/21/2017 02:40:16 pm

I think Jason tapped into something that's been churning just beneath the surface for a long time. It needs shaping to be effective, and I think Jason is the guy to do it.

Reply

funkmon

2/23/2017 05:50:33 am

I really like the Skeptical Inquirer, and I like CSICOP. I really do. I know the feelings of the founders, but I really don't think that scientific skepticism precludes belief in a religion, and I don't think religion is an issue. The claims of religions should be tested where possible, but I strongly dislike the idea that skepticism and atheism are linked.

Skepticism is a process, not a belief system. I don't "believe" in anything, I suppose, except decency and justice and tolerance and the like. I cannot prove any of these values are "true" but I assent to them because they work for me. I do not think these values come from an ineffable intelligence, but I don't mind if you think so, provided you don't impose your views on anyone. If your values inform harmful or hateful actions, I might ask you some questions. (If your values or views are merely hilarious, I still might ask you questions, but that is for my own entertainment.)

So to Jason's point: I am skeptical of groups of like-minded people. I am concerned that my individuality, my particular point of view, would have to submit to partisanship or to an ideology. I would not be allowed to ask (my often educational and amusing!) questions.

But I am built that way: I am comfortable with uncertainty and having long stretches of time to myself. However, it is my lifelong observation that people (in general) are anxious in the absence of certainty, and that they get validation from belonging. Tricky needs to address if one wants to be critical-minded.

Reply

Mark

7/3/2017 08:30:36 pm

"CSI has routinely conflated scientific skepticism with secular humanism, going so far as to ostracize those who aren’t atheists from the skeptical movement. This tendency will only grow worse now that CFI has officially merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, another group that is officially dedicated to science and reason but is informally an atheist advocacy group."

It's nice to see a competent skeptic acknowledge that there is a difference between skepticism and a world view. And yes, there are various organizations that seek to marry skepticism with secular humanism etc.

Those who do are, in my opinion, silly asses.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.